More problems I found by just downloading all leisure=golf_course
objects and randomly browsing around some of Kansas/Nebraska with Bing
imagery.
Can't idenfity on aerial. I could just be missing it. Or GNIS position
might be off by a lot. Some are in the middle of a town without so
much as a full block of grass anywhere near them. Or it may have been
closed but is still in GNIS. It is unlikely that it is a new golf
course. Bing imagery seems to be pretty recent (2010) in most areas I
looked at.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556624422
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556638495
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556635779
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556635714
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556624015
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556625367
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556625957
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556631507
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556638863
Two golf courses in close proximity that are probably the same course,
maybe known by two different names:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556638410
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556627728
and
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556624801
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556639241
Were these not in GNIS or were they excluded because of an existing
way? Could have maybe used GNIS data to add a name to the existing
way:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/46342164
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/43332671
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/42280171
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/98180901
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/129025203
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/126614718
Toby
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Golf Geek golfgeek2...@hotmail.com wrote:
After reviewing the Import/Guidelines wiki, I realize I should have posted
here first, but here's a quick after action report on a recent import.
Better late than never. :)
Why didn't you read this before the import? This should not be viewed
as optional.
I noticed that although USGS GNIS data had been imported into OSM in the
past, the US golf course locations provided as GNIS Locales had not been
included.
So, I retrieved GNIS Locales with Golf in the name from
http://geonames.usgs.gov/ and saved them as OSM nodes, using these tags:
gnis:Class = Locale
gnis:County = [various]
gnis:ST_alpha = [various]
gnis:id = [various]
leisure = golf_course
name = [various]
source = USGS GNIS
From the list of ~6000 nodes, I removed any that overlapped with existing
OSM golf_course nodes or ways.
You apparently failed to take into account how terrible GNIS spatial
accuracy can actually be:
Your node: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556636801
Existing way: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/70764331
Yes, that over a mile off. This is why the import guidelines say to
discuss it with the community FIRST. There is much collected knowledge
about imports in the community which can prevent such common mistakes.
The remaining 4421 nodes were then added as Changeset 10168800.
The data license is OK (USGS GNIS has been used before), and the new nodes
should not screw up existing data (although I am sure they are not perfect),
so hopefully this import will be a good starting point for further manual
edits.
With nodes that are off by a mile, I am doubtful of this claim. So
far, I have only looked at that one node so far. Others, please check
more in your area. If mine is an outlier then I'll just fix it. If
there are many more that are as bad as this one, I would propose
reverting this import, especially since import guidelines were not
followed.
Toby
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
